Mike Driver

gracie abrams

Andulka
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
YOU ARE THE REASON
🩵 avery cochrane 🩵

oozey mess
Cosimo Galluzzi
ojovivo

tannertan36
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

No title available
No title available
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
noise dept.

izzy's playlists!
art blog(derogatory)
h

blake kathryn

Product Placement
seen from United Arab Emirates
seen from Italy
seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Chile

seen from Chile

seen from Spain

seen from T1
seen from Myanmar (Burma)

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Norway
seen from United States

seen from Senegal

seen from Paraguay
seen from United States
@gratulation-1368
Jan. 29 Coord (a bit more old school than goth i guess)
"women's sports" are just Girl Dinnner and Girl Math but as a major cisfeminist project instead of sarcastic self-deprecation
Adeptus Titanicus
John Blanche
For thousands of years humanity has selectively bred chickens to have larger breasts and to have to lay eggs constantly. We did it to get more meat and per chicken, but from the perspective of the domesticated chickens they’re sorta living in a very specific fetish scenario
The first tags I see on this are absolutely inspired. Incredible pervert lesbian website.
after i finished this i paused and thought i don't have the heart to eat these women. but maybe you do. if you're hungry
There's so much asymmetry between transmasc and transfem experiences, but one that always stands out to me is how common it is for early-transition trans men to appear to be reluctant to be considered fully men by wider society. I've recently had a trans man friend (a really great guy usually) complain that he is unfairly considered "not fully a man" by the cis men at our climbing gym, then a few minutes later declare that trans men are not a threat to women because they're "not men in the way that cis men are". Is he really expecting the cis guys to be less transphobic towards him than he is himself?
The most absurd example I've seen of this is in the coining of the term "malgendering", where the example is used of the Ukrainian military insisting that both trans women and trans men count as "men" for the purposes of the draft. I find the idea that this gender validation constitutes a kind of specific oppression of trans men hard to understand: I can only speak for myself, but if the women in my country were all expected to undergo some horrible experience I would not want to be exempted from it on the grounds of my birth sex, I would expect to suffer alongside them, it's called solidarity! Also how is your first instinct on seeing that that it is trans men rather than trans women who are the victims of the greater injustice?
There is a meme about certain trans men that they don't believe transition does anything, that they regard themselves as a type of woman who is called a "man", rather than actually a man. This is has a kind-of parallel in transfemininity in the internally-transphobic trans girls that are quite common on places like 4tran, who hyperbolically regard any transition that starts after the age of 16 as doomed. But I don't think these are fully mirrors of each other, because the hypothetical internally-transphobic trans girl regards a "passing" transition as something desirable but available only to the young or rich, the trans men I'm talking about seem to regard a "passing" transition as a genuine impossibility for everyone ever (even while so many of their trans male peers are living happy, often stealth, lives as men). It's less doomerism and more unfounded bioessentialism.
I think this comes back to the issue of asymmetry. A lot of trans men initially come out as men only to find that society merely shifts from viewing them as "weird girl" to "deluded girl", the misogyny doesn't stop, it just gets combined with an increase in transphobia. Meanwhile, for a lot of trans women, their coming out experience is the sudden transition from "weird boy" to "T-slur", there's a massive and immediate change in life experience that comes after asserting "I am a woman" that doesn't really have a transmasculine parallel. The joke slogan "trans 👏 people 👏 are 👏 women" has a grain of truth in the sense of how wider society views early-transition trans people, irrespective of transition direction. For transfems, the mere act of coming out (even if you don't transition medically) massively changes your social positioning in a way that doesn't really happen in reverse.
I think a lot of the reluctance of early-transition trans men to consider themselves fully men is simply down to a material assessment of how wider society views and treats them. It's no surprise that trans men who are far into medical transition tend to be much more willing to regard themselves as fully men, since at this point many others are treating them that way too. The difference with transfems is that we are treated as particularly marginalised women immediately on coming out, and (depending on how the closet went for us) often even well before that, maybe for our entire lives.
There's a similarity to the "double-empathy problem" in which autistic and allistic people struggle to understand whichever experience they haven't had themselves. Growing up as a closeted trans girl, the way I interacted with the closet was to ignore the heavy social pressure to perform "manhood" and just be myself, resulting in me facing a whole lot of misogyny from basically the moment I could talk. I used to think the closeted trans boy equivalent of me was undergoing an opposite experience at the same time, one of actually being treated like a boy to some extent, but in fact he was just also facing a whole lot of misogyny too. We were both treated like girls, although the only one of us allowed to name ourselves as "girl" was the one who didn't want that in the first place. That's not to say our experiences were the same: the transmisogynised occupy a much lower social position. Only that the attachment a lot of early-transition trans men seem to feel towards womanhood is understandable given that they still occupy a misogynised social position.
I think understanding this asymmetry is key to understanding trans experiences generally. I only wish that the sizeable chunk of early-transition trans men and other transmascs who recognise their misogynised social role were more aware that their transfem equivalents do not have the inverse experience. We are not treated like men in the same way that they are often treated like women. The totally reasonable transfem resentment at being excluded from support for the misogynised is not based on some putative wish-fulfillment desire to be misogynised rather than seen as men, but merely a reflection of the reality that we are actually heavily misogynised from (at the very latest) the moment we come out. That experience doesn't have an equivalent for you, but that's the reality of living in a patriarchal system.
in order to have anything even close to peace on this website you have to block so liberally. someone left an annoying/stupid comment on someone elses post? blocked. unreadable blog theme? blocked. blank blog? blocked. he/him pronouns? blocked. not leftist enough? blocked. shit opinions about food? yepp you guessed it. blocked. unoriginal? blocked. idgaf. this just so happens to filter out a huge amt of people who would otherwise cause me a lot of trouble. blocking shouldnt be precision strikes u dont hafta wait for them to cause You trouble before blocking. block as much and as many as possible and they wont cause you much trouble at all
me: yeah i guess its not even a kink thing really, like yeah i want a mommy but moreso i just want the kindness i was never afforded in childhood
mob guy: yeah. i undastand dat. my mudda, god rest her soul, was a complicated woman,
some girls are more plushie than human... you can test it by cuddling them and those who melt into your arms immediately are just toys pretending to be people. you can take them home with you and they'll thank you for it.
if you like s/t/e/v/e/n u/n/i/v/e/r/s/e every character from killing stalking hates you
who's the asshole who decided that card games should go into the strategy game category
a strategy videogame is when you either build a building and/or tell a guy to hit something, but you have to manage Resources to do it. Every strategy videogame is a variation of this concept.
Ideally, when you play a strategy videogame, you must feel that you are taking charge of something, the USSR or I don't know, a pizza chain, your resources and guys and buildings might be abstract but they represent something
None of this involves cards. Cards are completely foreign to this. Why the fuck are they here.
"ooohggh but according to this theory planning and taking decisions is strategy so cards are strategy" okay is DOOM fucking strategy now? is mario kart strategy now? is GTA strategy? Where does it end, Diane?
Kids born in 2002 are 6 now. Let that sink in
The main reason it took me a while to come around to transfeminism was that statistic about transmasculine people being much more likely to be victims of sexual assault than transfeminine people, a claim that is apparently backed by multiple independent surveys.
To me, this claim always seemed somewhat surprising and at-odds with everything else I knew about transphobia, but that only suggested that there must be something about transmasculinity that I didn't understand, some specific form of oppression going on that I was unaware of. So I spent a long time listening to people we'd today call "transa***ophobia theorists" to try and get a better understanding of this oppression.
Eventually the irl evidence of my eyes and ears became too strong and I had to look for an explanation beyond "we're all equally oppressed", and I found that explanation in transfeminism, but I still wonder about that specific statistic. What is going on with it?
The study I see cited the most is this one by Abern etc al. It's not really a journal article, it's actually a letter (specifically a Concise Research Report), which is a much shorter publication, albeit still peer-reviewed.
The letter in question is entirely about a single survey with 996 participants with the sole aim of determining what proportion of transmasculine and transfeminine people had experienced sexual assault in their lifetimes.
The exact results are a little tricky to ascertain because, although it's a short letter, they are stated twice and with different percentages each time (seemingly due to confusion over whether to count people who skipped the question altogether), which does not reflect particularly well on the quality of the peer review, I guess. But I think the correct interpretation is that 50% of transmasc respondents had ever been victims of sexual assault, vs 37% of transfems. That is the statistic that stuck in my mind for so long.
Something that's a little odd about this survey is that only 21% of respondents were transfem vs 79% transmasc. That is an unusually stark difference. Does that discrepancy reflect a bias in how the respondents were selected?
The authors themselves admit that the overwhelming whiteness of the respondents reflects some bias in the selection. In fact, the majority of respondents also have private health insurance but also very low income and have graduated school but not college, which suggests to me that a very large portion of survey respondents were current college students, which would also go some way to explaining the lack of transfem respondents (since transfems transition older on average).
It's hard to work out exactly how respondents were recruited. For instance, we are told "social media" was used, but not which forms and in which way. The survey was actually done in 2017-2018, a time when most transfems of my acquaintance predominantly used Twitter and sometimes Reddit (that's just anecdotal ofc). If the study was only shared on Tumblr, for instance, could that explain it? We have no way of knowing.
We also don't know what question specifically was asked. Was it "Have you ever been the victim of a sexual assault?" or was it something that gave examples of the kinds of things that might constitute assault? Could the question have been interpreted as implying (without meaning to) forms of assault where the victim is presumed to have specific anatomy, such that people without that anatomy might answer "No" irrespective of what they had experienced? We don't know the question, so we can't know.
Furthermore, if the question merely asked about sexual assault without defining it, might there be an issue with certain demographics being more or less likely to characterise sexual assaults they had experienced as sexual assaults? I know from my own experience that I have been sexually assaulted many times but it took me a long time to understand that that was the correct term for what I had been through. I think many people have a mental image of what a sexual assault looks like, and if their experience doesn't match that image they may not characterise it as assault, even though it is.
All these things were questions that a good survey designer would hopefully think about before doing the survey, but it seems no one did in this case. But ultimately, it doesn't actually matter, because even if this survey is really flawed, it cites an earlier survey that was much more thorough, so we may as well look at that one instead.
That is the 2015 US Transgender Survey, which had 28,000 respondents, a really good sample size. And we're off to a great start because there's a 43/57 transfem/transmasc split this time, which is much better.
I'll just give a quick run-down of the main points as they relate to trans women's experiences in comparison to trans men (it's much harder to generically compare transfem to transmasc here, because the non-binary category is generally not separated into transition direction, so this is the only realistic way of doing the comparison).
Compared to trans men, trans women...
...start transition about 10 years later on average.
...are more than twice as likely to say other people can tell they are trans most of the time.
...who came out to a partner were twice as likely to be broken-up with over it.
...who have kids were more than 4 times as likely for their kids to stop speaking to them because of their transition.
...are more likely to experience family rejection.
...were 3 times as likely to have temporarily "de-transitioned", mainly due to family pressure or harassment.
...who were perceived as trans at school were twice as likely to be physically attacked.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more than twice as likely to have been sexually assaulted.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more likely to have left school due to harassment.
...who were perceived as trans at school were more than twice as likely to have been expelled.
...were more likely to have left college or vocational school because of harassment.
...were more likely to have lost a job due to gender identity or expression.
...were more likely to have been assaulted at work in the past year due to being trans.
...were more than twice as likely to have done sex work.
...who had an interaction with cops who believed them to be sex workers were more likely to be arrested.
...who had interactions with cops were more likely to be misgendered.
...were more likely to have been made homeless in the past year due to being trans.
...were more likely to have been denied housing in the past year due to being trans.
...were more likely to have been attacked by or forced to engage in sexual activity with cops.
...were more likely to be verbally harassed by strangers.
...were more likely to have been physically attacked by strangers in public.
...were more likely to have had bad experiences on public transport in the past year.
...were more likely to have had a bad experience at a domestic violence shelter in the past year.
...were more likely to have had bad experience with a legal professional.
...were more likely to have been sexually assaulted in a public bathroom.
That is all exactly what I would expect, based on the experiences of the trans people I know. It paints a picture of a world where trans women experience a whole lot more oppression, much of it violent, including sexual assault, at school, by police officers, in public bathrooms, the list goes on.
So what is going on when this survey also states that 51% of trans men have been sexually assaulted, vs 37% of trans women? (Yes, that's basically identical to the other survey) How can that possibly make sense in the context of basically everything else in the survey?
We can't blame the survey itself this time, because we know exactly what question they were asked, and it did detail what kinds of things are considered sexual assault. So, then, what's going on?
This survey essentially states that trans women are more likely to experience sexual assault, but are also less likely to have experienced sexual assault. So that must mean that we have to look at pre-transition experiences for the explanation.
Is it true that closeted trans women are less likely to experience sexual assault than closeted trans men? Maybe. It would've been nice if this survey had established the answer to that question for us. But if so, it would explain at least some of this statistic.
It would imply that a trans woman's risk of experiencing sexual assault jumps up from moderate to very high at the moment she starts her transition. Anecdotally, there is definitely a substantial increase in oppression when you start openly asserting your womanhood, although I and virtually every transfem I know was on the receiving end of sexual violence long before that, there is no doubt that it gets markedly worse.
If this is the explanation, it does rather raise the question of why surveys ask for "lifetime sexual assault" rather than "sexual assault in the past year", for example. I would like to be able to put this down to survey-designer bias, and indeed neither of the co-leads on this survey were transfems, so transmisogynistic bias would hardly be surprising. There were also some parts of the writing that stood out oddly to me:
7% of the "AMAB" respondents were categorised not as trans women or non-binary but as "crossdresser". There is no transmasc equivalent of this for obvious reasons, but this asymmetry is not mentioned by the authors at any point (even though that asymmetry is basically the canonical example of transmisogyny).
There is no acknowledgement of the "non-binary woman" identity that so many transfems have - such people are just classified as "trans woman", which is why the non-binary category is 80% transmasc. This is one classic way in which transfems are denied access to non-binariness.
Quite a lot of the statistics were not broken down by gender, even though it would've been interesting to see, and I suspect would've demonstrated a strong gender gap: things like alcohol and tobacco use, salary, unemployment, whether they had supportive classmates at school.
At one point, the authors make a point of mentioning that, even though trans women make up the majority of trans sex workers, transmasc non-binary sex workers should not be forgotten - that's all well and good, but the chart they use to show this demonstrates that transfem non-binary people are actually more likely to be sex workers than transmascs, and they aren't mentioned at all.
In short, I felt like there was a thread transmisogyny throughout the study. But, even if the co-leads weren't, two of the other authors are trans women, so I'm not sure that argument holds up. Maybe it does, idk. In any case, I am not convinced of it, even if I have an uneasy feeling.
But ultimately the issue is this: the sexual assault question is framed in such a way that it ends up weighting pre-transition experiences very heavily compared to post-transition. This is exactly the trick that transmisogynists like to pull so often, to give the impression of a trans woman as someone unworthy of sympathy due to an alleged earlier life of great privilege, even if she is suffering a lot right now.
The only way I can make sense of this statistic in the context of everything else, is that a closeted transfem is less likely to be sexually assaulted than a closeted transmasc, but after transition it switches and the transfem is much more likely to be sexually assaulted. Does that reflect a particular form of oppression faced by transmascs? It seems an odd way to frame the situation, to say the least.
But also, I think there may be something else going on with the relatively low sexual assault rate for closeted transfems. I have experienced forms of assault as a woman that I instantly recognise as assault, but I remember experiencing exactly the same things when I considered myself to be a man and back then I didn't consider it to be assault.
When you think of yourself as a man, and another man gropes you (for example), it can be really difficult to conceptualise that as "sexual assault", even though it is. And even looking back now, I still find it hard to refer to some of those experiences as sexual assault.
There was a man who sexually assaulted me 20 years ago and I said nothing, and then he did the same things to a cis woman who made a complaint and he rightly got punished for it. If someone had surveyed me after that, I still would've said I had never experienced sexual assault. As a closeted transfem, I was in a position where there clearly was a power dynamic but it was one I couldn't understand, and without understanding it I couldn't put the words "sexual assault" to the actions. Part of being a closeted transfem is being unable to conceptualise your gendered oppression as oppression, because on some level you regard yourself as a gendered oppressor and that can be reflected in the language you use to describe your oppression even long after the fact.
So, perhaps it's true that closeted transfems experience less sexual assault. But equally perhaps it's not, and they just find it harder to refer to it that way. I don't know. But I do know that it's absurd to take a survey that shows over and over again that transfems are right at the bottom of the gender hierarchy, and cherry pick the one statistic that appears to show the opposite.
UMA means umasogyny-affected
There's this seeming divide in the transfem community between those who regard their time in the closet as a time when they were nonetheless experiencing misogyny and transmisogyny, often framed as "girlhood" or "trans girlhood", and those who regard their closeted life as something closer to a "normal" boyhood.
I've had many awkward interactions when trying to argue that trans women were not "male socialised", as the occasional transfem will jump in to contradict me and say that she did have a "normal boy childhood". I've been told at times that, by describing my own life, I make transfems who don't understand their youth as a "girlhood" feel like they're fake or inauthentically trans.
I've often struggled with this, because so much of how I understand my own life is through the lens of desperation to find the words to describe a gender expression that has barely changed since I was a kid. Understanding myself as a woman has helped make sense of experiences in my youth that made no sense otherwise. Why was I talked over all the time? Why was I sexually assaulted so often? Why did I struggle to turn academic success into career success? Why was I underpaid compared to my peers? Understanding that I was viewed as a kind of girl (even as I was denied the right to name myself "girl") sites my experiences within the long history of women who have faced exactly the same kinds of marginalisations.
I understood "transition" as a kind of acceptance of a reality that has always been there, just a reframing of my self-image rather than a fundamental change in how I interact with the world. So discovering how many trans women didn't have childhoods like mine has been a bit of difficult experience, I've had to rework how I understand transition to make sense of it.
I now understand it like this: every "boy" enters the world without any particular idea of which kinds of behaviours are aligned with "manhood" and which with "womanhood". Childhood is the experience of pushing boundaries, seeing what happens, and adapting accordingly.
Every "boy" has likely had the experience of once doing something that aligns far more with "womanhood" rather than "manhood" (whether it be being softly-spoken and meek, crying over the suffering of others, calling out the misogyny of their peers, wearing a feminine item of clothing or make-up, expressing interest in a feminine hobby or piece of media, or anything else) and then being told such a behaviour is not an appropriate one for a boy, it's something girls do. The vast majority of boys will quickly learn and adapt. They will not feel any kind of internal struggle between their performance of masculinity and a deep desire to behave differently, they just think "Oh, ok" and go along with it.
Then there are the small number of "boys" who, in spite of being told it's inappropriate, continue to feel that deep desire to do whatever it was that was deemed feminine. These "boys" have two options:
They can keep doing the feminine behaviour, even as the social punishments, exclusion, bullying, etc, roll in. They will be under immense pressure to change their behaviour, but for whatever reason (perhaps autism boosting resistance to conforming to social norms) will just continue to do what they are told is "girly", often not even understanding why they should not be "girly" in the first place.
They can adopt a masculine mask, feigning no inclination towards the feminine behaviour even as they continue to feel it. This will confer certain superficial privileges, in the sense of avoiding the social punishments that come with "girliness", but at the severe mental cost of inauthenticity. Many autistic people who mask as allistic experience severe burnout when the mask has been up for too long, and so will it be for these "boys": inauthenticity and performance are so draining and make it impossible to live a full life.
If they keep performing even a small handful of behaviours that are socially read as "feminine", the "boys" in group (1) will experience misogyny from a very young age, and if they go on to transition will correctly assess their youth as a time when they lived as girls, being treated as girls, but without the language to describe it accurately until later. Transition is not so much a change in their behaviour as an acknowledgement of what their behaviour has always meant.
The equivalent "boys" in group (2) may avoid explicit misogyny for a long time, but, to use a phrase from gay and bi activists, "the closet is not a privilege". To be required to perform manhood to avoid punishment, even as you know it doesn't fit you, even as you really want to behave very differently, is not a "normal boy childhood". "Normal boys" do not suffer like this. Still, if they go on to transition and remove the mask, it will not be a mere perspective-shift but a major change in how they interact with the world.
To be a closeted trans girl is to be placed in an impossible bind: either be yourself and experience the most horrific social punishment, or mask and experience awful internal strife and self-hatred.
I think we can understand the diverse responses to the closet as a spectrum of an overarching whole, which is that none of us experienced anything like a normal boyhood, none of us were privileged by this experience, we all suffered heavily, and whether that suffering was internal, external, or both is a mere detail and not a major dividing line between us.
Religious princess: "Dark forces have conspired against princess to prevent her from growing sizeable boobs"
Atheist princess: "Material conditions were not ripe for princess to eat lots and lots of ice cream and butter chicken"
Agnostic princess: "Nobody knows why princess has A-cups"
We need to protect afab dog bodies from being high jump kicked by members of the punk community